Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ex. PW5/B :- Reply of PW-5 to notice u/s 133 MV Act.

Ex. PW5/C :- Release of container on behalf of the firm by PW-

5 on Superdarinama.

Ex. PW7/A :- Detail report of inspection of motor cycle bearing No. DL 9S AF 6188.

Ex. PW7/B :- Detail report of inspection of Ashoka Leyland Loaded 18 wheeler Trolla bearing No. HR 38 Q 9996.

In his cross examination, he stated that he received DD No. 4A after 12.00 AM and that he went alongwith Ct. Sujeet Kumar on motor cycle. The offending vehicle was at a distance of 100 yards from the dead body. Two persons and other public persons were present at the spot. Complainant did not give the description of the accused in his statement. Lights were present on the road at the said time. He took photograph of the skid mark of the tyres of the offending vehicle.

10. PW5 Vivek Kumar deposed that on 13.06.2013 he was working in the M V Logistics, I-45, Erose Gardeb Faridabad and he was posted as Supervisor in the aforesaid firm. On 13.06.2013 PW-5 was authorized by Mool Chand Sharma i.e. that the proprietor of aforesaid firm to represent the firm in the present case on behalf of the firm vide letter dated 13.06.2013 which is present in the case file and is Ex.PW5/A. After the execution of letter dated 13.06.2013. PW-5 appeared before the IO and replied notice u/s 133MV Act. On 12.06.2013 container trolla bearing no. HR 38 Q 9996 belongs to aforesaid firm and Mohd. Akil was deputed as its driver. PW-5 further replied that on 12.06.2013 at about 11.35 p.m. the aforesaid container was in the possession of its driver namely Mohd. Akil. Reply of PW-5 to notice u/s 133 MV Act is Ex.PW5/B. During investigation on 16.06.2013, PW-5 applied for the release of aforesaid container on behalf of the said firm and PW-5 got released the same on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW5/C. PW-5 correctly identified four photographs taken from the spot, 4 photographs of aforesaid Container bearing no.HR 38 Q - 9996. Photographs are a part of Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 colly.

Further, PW-5, who is the supervisor of M. V. Logistics, i.e., the superdar of the offending vehicle, has also deposed that on 12.06.2013 at 11:35 pm, i.e., at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was in the possession of his driver, namely Mohd. Akil, i.e., the accused in the present case. The reply to the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act, Ex. PW5/B dated 13.06.2013, also notes the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven on 12.06.2013 at 11:35 pm by the accused. In the TIP proceedings conducted on 27.06.2013, in which TIP was refused by the accused, it is specifically noted that the accused stated that he did not want to participate in TIP because complainant and witnesses had seen him on the spot and could easily identify him. However, during trial, the accused has stated that he was not driving the said vehicle and he has been framed by M. V. Logistics. In support of his defence, he has examined one Mohd. Abid as DW-1 who deposed that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle on 12.06.2013 and in the summer time of 2013, the supervisor of M. V. Transport had come to their room and taken the accused with him to get the vehicle released. In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he has stated that he does not know that who was driving the offending vehicle on 12.06.2013. He further stated that he did not tell the police official that accused was not the driver of the offending vehicle, despite having accompanied the accused and the supervisor to the PS. He stated that the day on which they have visited the PS i.e., 12.06.2013, the offending vehicle was released. He was confronted with the copy of the Superdarinama of the offending vehicle which recorded the date of Superdarinama as 17.06.2013. It is also correct that as per the arrest memo, the accused has been arrested on 13.06.2013 and thereby, released on police bail on 13.06.2013. Thus, the testimony of DW-1 does not help the accused as while DW-1 has stated that they had visited the PS on the day on which the vehicle was released, which means 17.06.2013 as per the Superdarinama, but the accused was produced by the Supervisor and arrested on 13.06.2013 itself. Further, in his statement in the TIP refusal also, he has acknowledged that the complainant and the witnesses have seen him at the spot. No reason has been given by the accused for his false implication by either the complainant or by M.V. Logistics. Hence, on the basis of the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-